All the old memories are flooding back now.

Just looking through some old threads. The ASA never 'officially' found in my favour, too damaging to the system probably, but I think that this issue was discussed at a reasonably high level and some sort of feedback was filtered through to the industry. After I made my ASA complaint such ads seemed to decline in number and then completely disappear. It was hardly rocket science that trumpeting (literally what they did) the word 'unsecured' as an explicit, major part of the up front sell would encourage more careless borrowing. In fact, even the ceasing of such ads wasn't good enough. It should have been made compulsory to explicitly trumpet, on all lending ads, that your home was ultimately at risk if the money wasn't repaid. Something along the lines of cigarette health warnings would have done the job.

The problem with switching off your home home hub/modem is that it can make your internet wonky for a few days. So I have heard anyway and from personal experience, don't think I was imagining it, it did seem to be the case. Nothing dramatic, but enough to have me leave it switched on. I am surprised that I could save around £1.80 a month by switching it off and might now reconsider.

Not posted in a long while and I hope all the 'old timers' ('new timers' too ) are well. I am scouting out for more information to contribute to a case on behalf of my father and we were both just looking at the recent email newsletter. Yes, I found 'Blair, Oliver And Scott' very suspicious too and mentioned it on the forum back in 2007/2008. In my opinion, it is more naughty to dream up names purporting to be specific people; rather than using some sort of generic company name. If the Daily Mail have wind of this, they must have the evidence, then there can't be any need for us to send in copies of my father's old BOS letters. Someone sat there and dreamt up the idea and it must have been sanctioned at a high level, but as with Wonga not much will happen i'll warrant. The best we can hope for is to put a stop to such activities by shining a bright light on all the companies doing this. Since Wonga hit the headlines they are probably all already winding down on the deceitful practice.

I only just checked my emails for the first time in a while and was very sorry to hear the bad news. I certainly remember him as one of the 'good guys' right from when I first showed up on the site, in great desperation too, around early 2007. It's a shame that I never got to meet him in real life. RIP Martin.

Nice to see some positive news.

This is all fantastic stuff Bankfodder. However, what about the future? What about those getting charged now and who will get charged next year and the year after that ad infinitum? Will these arguments help them?

I have fully addressed my opinions throughout the thread. Reread the thread carefully please and you will see this. I am completely mythed as to why you keep coming back to ask me the same thing. I have given my view on the issue. If we disagree, then we disagree. That seems something that a 'few' people on this site can't seem to contemplate. Thank you. I gave my views on the way forward and opened them up to debate. I can't speak for the Site Team. Maybe start another thread? Regarding the future of this issue I only see this as the way forward: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/234784-march-fair-financial-system.html

It is not a debate because you seem incapable of debate. I asked you an incredibly straightforward question which you refuse to answer. Two of those five posts were direct responses to Mungypup and yourself, two were directly related to your insane and unhinged comments that led to a moderator appearing on this thread. The fifth was asking if you wished to proceed with sensible deate or not. Therefore, if it wasn't for your unhinged and insane comments three of those five posts wouldn't even exist. As I said, the other two posts were simply standard responses to previous posts, which is how a thread works unless i'm mistaken? Please tell me if you think I am wrong. I can proceed with the thread, happily too, if you answer the question. Here it is again: I would say it is you that has a very serious problem with anyone daring to present a view different to anything you disagree with. You seem to lose the plot and call them 'sex offenders'. Yes, that does really speak for itself doesn't it. Incorrect i'm afraid, it is simply a statement that welcomes intelligent debate and warns against insane and unhinged comments. It doesn't surprise me at all that you find it funny. It seems to be the sort of person that you are. Oh, you are not subscribed to this thread? I wouldn't have guessed it. Anyone is welcome to subscribe to this thread for intelligent debate. Insane and unhinged comments are not welcome. I am simply replying to posts made by others, not talking to myself as you have alleged. I suggest that you carefully reread the thread in full and you will see this. You are just making yourself look worse now. I would suggest you cut your losses. I reiterate, if you want to come back with intelligent debate you are very welcome. Making a lengthy statement and then basing my entire response on two comments within that statement is not intelligent debate. Being politely asked about this approach and not offering a response is not intelligent debate. Being politely asked about this approach for a second time and resorting to calling someone a 'sex offender' is not intelligent debate. I am actually very glad that Steven has left your wild comments on show, as folk will be able to see I am quite right in everything I have said. My question is perfectly valid within the context of intelligent debate; whereas your responses are not. It is crystal clear. How you act is your choice. Please take some responsibility. I will not sink to your level. I am happy to engage in intelligent debate. P.S. Another tip if I may, writing in varying sizes of bold text doesn't make you any more authentic either.

Further explained by: I believe this is where we were if you have anything further to add.

Right, now this has been dealt with appropriately I will be happy to address any intelligent comments. Any further insane and unhinged posts will also be reported. I have rarely done this, if ever, since being on CAG I believe. Thank you.

Forget the past. The future is a blank slate Bankfodder. Thank you for everything you have done. The hard work you have put in must be mindboggling. I truly hope that this hasn't impacted upon your health. Now is the time for everyone to rally together and make a new start. If bank charges are legal, because the Supreme Court says so, then the law needs changing methinks. People are being royally rogered as we speak and will be for every single day that we don't do something about it. Anyhow, I don't want to lose the message of this thread which is essentially 'THANK YOU BANKFODDER!' Site Team too obviously! I just wanted to thank Bankfodder in person.

Don't give up mate, as the awakening is growing. Albeit slowly...

I am on the side of the poor and downtrodden, in fact I am poor and downtrodden, but for those that doubted me don't say I didn't tell you so. As well as earlier on this thread, and on numerous other threads, I even said so on the evening of 25th November 2009. But then again, what do I know? I'm just an idiot.

They haven't always been thieves in relation to charges though. It started off slowly in the 1990's didn't it? Then, they slowly upped them like a credit card company upping an APR. If we had fought back sooner we could have stopped it becoming embedded in U.K. banking culture. It's a case of 'been a thief for a long time, not always; I am a greedy bastard; I don't really depend on it, but I like it so'. I have previously raised the issue of bank charges being seen as an indirect tax too, as well as the charges competition issue. The equation is simple. The banks are paying themselves a fortune, they are already making huge profits again, they are not reliant on bank charges. That's where Lord Phillips really got my goat, when he said they couldn't live without them. How did banks ever exist in the first place? Bankfodder, we need to devise a 'Citizens' Charter' and stick to it. We have to demand parliament to regulate on the basis of what we come up with. This should be done through mass, peaceful, public protest. I have aired ideas before, but not done anything formal. I will be glad to knock something up in full and start a thread. Others can then criticise, improve and add to what I come up with. I will do it based on one specific charge at a time for both bank accounts and credit card accounts. Do you support me in this plan or not? It's not worth my time otherwise. For the record, I am not advocating conceding defeat on old cases. I am just in full agreement that we need to focus on the future now.

The biggest [problem] is Central Banks being private.

Respect to you Fergal. I fear we need site team approval for a chance of success though. They have a massive database of email addresses. They already have media contacts. Same with the other dissenting sites. However, they won't act until the game is concluded, which is fair enough. If we are finally checkmated, which I believe we will be, I hope the site team will jump on board and hook up with the other dissenting sites. It's really scary, but I actually feel folk feel intimidated and unsure about using their right to mass, public, peaceful protest. That isn't democracy!

Hermie, we can do this. Get a County Court judgement with an identical case, ***if you are confident***, and come back here with it. That is what I am doing and my case is 'cast iron'. I am going to have jobs when i'm finished. They were well warned. No I.A. to bail them out this time. Indeed, he will be for the chop too. Off to court to expose them. When a few of us do this, others will follow. It's the way it works. Always harder being the first isn't it... See you back here in the future hopefully and we, others too I hope, can liaise with Bankfodder and progress with the issue.

You mean F.O.S.? I keep getting confused between the F.O.S. and the F.S.A. when you type it F.S.O.. Stop it or i'll sue.

My views are well known. In a nutshell, I believe the Supreme Court made an Establishment decision. I best not send the thread off topic by gibbering on about it.

I don't doubt a word of that and it's probably worse than you think. The legal system did great till it got to the Supreme Court.

I'm not siding with anyone, as I haven't got a clue what happened! Purely from my experience here, I must say I have never thought of Bookworm as a troll.

If you want another 6 years of stress, hell and hassle that in no way compensates for the loan you have taken, then yes. However, as you have stated these intentions, it would be a criminal act. I wouldn't recommend such actions for both of these reasons. I wouldn't dream of getting credit I couldn't afford to pay back on time, let alone intend not to pay back, for any reason. Don't do it.

I am trying to have some serious debate. Where do these people come from?